From Ron Kitching.
The Poisonous Pests at the IPCC are playing for keeps. And the Labor Party is their Australian Agent and worse still, the Liberals and Nationals are following.
I just saw Malcolm Turnbull replying to a pro Climate Change tax statement by the treasurer and he said: We have to look after the Australian economy and at the same time focus on the global objective. He should have said: We need to foster Australian industry and business, and at the same time, expose the hoax of climate change and in particular expose the false deionization of carbon dioxide as a poisonous gas, when it is in fact, a gas necessary to grow our crops and to oxygenate the air through sunlight and the miracle of photosynthesis in plant foliage. Yet there is so little of it in the atmosphere - less than 0.04% . All life, including plant life, ocean life depends upon carbon dioxide.
I think that they and the Newspaper Editors are the ones we should direct our efforts to.
This post is taken from an Email to Benny Peiser, Editor, CCNet .
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has asked me to circulate the attached letter which he sent today to the President of the American Physical Society. Christopher Monckton's paper together with the contentious APS disclaimer can be found here:
The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here:
Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
Physics and Society
The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.
I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method that the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:
"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.
Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting.
If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?
Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to email@example.com ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only.
The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.